Prosecutors Reject CSD as Victim in Negreira Corruption Case
The Prosecutor’s Office has rejected the Supreme Sports Council’s (CSD) request for special prosecution in the Negreira case. They argue that the CSD cannot be considered a harmed party in the proceedings. In the summary published by EL PERIÓDICO, which is part of the Prensa Ibérica group, the prosecution contends that the organization recognizes a form of ethical injury linked to perceived misconduct at a sporting event, yet this does not qualify it as a legally offended party under current rules. The same reasoning is applied to the appearance of the Barça association in relation to the case. FC Barcelona has urged the court to participate both as an investigating party and as a special prosecutor, contending that it has suffered harm as a result of the alleged actions.
Prosecutors Luis Garcia Canton and Ricardo Sanz-Gadea emphasize that the notion of social hurt and offense does not translate into a strict legal criterion. They point to the Criminal Code provision that includes corruption in sports and stress that its purpose is to safeguard fair and honest competition. In their view, protecting free and fair competition is paramount. They explain that the concept of harm implies moral or material injury caused by a crime, and by their assessment the CSD does not meet the minimum requirements to be designated a special prosecutor.
“Neither Moral nor Material Damage”
According to some petitioners, who are not closely linked to the ideal of fair competition, there is no moral injury to endorse the charge in question. Prosecutors insist that the CSD cannot be regarded as a victim of non material damage, even indirectly, due to actions attributed to FC Barcelona or its leaders. They also note that the general guardianship of sport has been assumed by the CSD, including authority over arbitration from an organizational perspective. The conclusion drawn is that the CSD cannot be upgraded to a victim in a crime that aims to protect free and fair competition. Judge Silvia López Mejías, who oversees the case, is waiting to resolve participation requests, including those from Real Madrid.
The prosecution also opposes La Liga and the Spanish Football Federation’s broader request to extend the investigation to José María Enríquez Negreira’s son, Javier Enríquez Romero. They argue that the interpretation of the data provided is premature and that it would be unwise to construct a vast incriminating evidence base at this early stage of the inquiry. They emphasize prudence and call for awaiting the results of investigations conducted by the Civil Guard.
On the other side, La Liga has asked the judge to identify individuals who were part of the so‑called Tax Risk Committee. It is alleged that multiple auditing firms conducted internal reviews for Barcelona and related entities in connection with the Negreira case. Additionally, the Barcelona camp has requested that Real Madrid be placed under a specific charge with a bail set at 500,000 euros.
As the case unfolds, legal observers note the tension between protecting competitive integrity and defining who has standing to participate in the prosecution. The parties continue to argue whether the CSD, La Liga, and the federation can be considered legitimate actors within the judicial process, while the court weighs the appropriate scope of participation and the potential impact on ongoing investigations. The evolving legal strategy reflects a broader debate about the boundaries of official oversight in sports governance and the interpretation of non material harm within criminal proceedings. The outcome will signal how future sponsorship, oversight, and competition fairness mechanisms are applied in high profile sports cases. Sources discussing these developments include EL PERIÓDICO via the Prensa Ibérica network and official court communications that have been summarized for public understanding.